We called. We sent e-mails. My colleague and I called each other to discuss what to do. We both had plenty on our plates; talking to and e-mailing each other about this person’s stall (including an exasperated discussion at 11:00 PM one night) was not a productive use of our time. But neither was making phone calls and/or sending the junior manager e-mails. While we weren’t exactly being ignored, we were unmistakeably getting The Soft Stall. Frustrating.  We wanted action!

The surprise ending?

Everything worked out the way the junior manager expected it to work out (we were concerned that the situation wasn’t working out at all) — if only she could manage to stall us for at least another month or so.

Which she did.

Her Soft Stall (while infuriating at the time) was deliberate, smart — and, frankly, productive. Talk about managing the managers!

*     *     *

Thinking back over many situations in many settings, there are many instances in which The Muse would have been wise to stall. And on the occasions that she deliberately stalled, she rarely (truth be told) succeeded in stalling artfully.

When you need more time – examples: you’re waiting for more information to make a better decision; an initiative needs more work before it can be presented it to senior management; an important matter needs time for all its elements to become clearer to all concerned — the progressive stall technique is ideal. Here’s how it’s applied:

• When first asked, tell the person that you’ll get back to him or her. When asked a second time, repeat.  If pressed to indicate exactly when you will respond, try to be vague — suggest a few days, a few weeks, whatever is appropriate.
• If you’re seriously pressed and still need more time, tell the person there are more aspects to the matter than you realized. Ask to meet to discuss “everything”; set a date as far into the future as possible.
• The day before the meeting, reschedule.
• Don’t show up for the rescheduled meeting. Send someone to represent you who has no power to do anything except to report back what was discussed at the meeting and to apologize for your absence, explaining you had an unexpected conflict.

Phil Porter, who describes the progressive stall technique in Eat or Be Eaten (Prentice Hall: New Jersey) says you can use the last no-show tactic two or three times. The Muse doubts it, but maybe Porter is right. He is right about this point: soon enough the other person (or persons) will decide to by-pass you and begin to work up the organization chain.  But by then, as happened to The Muse and her colleague, the reason for stalling may have disappeared.

Here’s a deal that could have been a win-win success, if only….

Producers of a TV production company sat down with a executives of a major independent station to arrange terms for the sale of syndication rights of a popular TV sitcom. Both sides were excited about the deal. A quick close was expected.

While the opening discussion was friendly and enthusiastic, subsequent exchanges were not. A sticking point: the amount of audience share the sitcom would garner.

• Producers were confident of at least a 9% share.
• The would-be buyers were unwilling to negotiate on the basis of anything higher than a 7% share.

An agreement was essential: advertising revenues of about $1 million per share point were at stake.

After several long, heated, non-productive meetings, both sides left the table for good. The producer lost the market entirely; the station bought a less attractive program to fill its schedule.

The negotiation could have ended productively — and profitably — for both sides if at least one of the negotiators had known about a win-win approach that takes into account future unknowns: the so-called contingent contract. As the name suggests, some contract terms aren’t finalized until the uncertain matter in question, i.e., the contingency, becomes known.

In this case, the producer and TV station could have ended their contentious discussions about what the market share might be worth, and simply worked out different license fees to be paid once the program’s actual ratings became known.

Likewise, if you ever lead a negotiation that reaches an impasse over a critical but unknown future element, make your differences of opinion the core of your agreement by writing a contingent contract.

Take it fromThe Muse: It’s always more productive to bet on the future, not argue about it.

Source: Max H. Bazerman and James J. Gillespie, “Betting on the Future: The Virtues of Contingency Contracts,” The Harvard Business Review, http://tinyurl.com/6zplkp

The reason?

Time is one of the scarcest resources in any organization. A hurried (and dare we admit, careless?)  reading by one or more senior managers could result in an unfavorable choice of action simply because you didn’t “sell” anyone on the alternative you consider to be optimal.

If you strongly favor a particular action over other possibilities, build a strong case for your preferred choice . Here’s how:

• Begin your report by summarizing the situation that prompted the request for a review and report. A clear summary helps to ensure that the decision makers know and understand the problem(s) you seek to address in the same way that you know and understand the problem(s).
  
• Discuss the action alternatives identified during the review process; include the criteria you and your group used to evaluate them. Important point: To limit the risk that an option that you do not favor is selected, explain clearly why you rejected every alternative, particularly those that  provoked the most discussion, disagreement, and/or debate.
• Conclude your report by presenting the action choice most likely to achieve the cited goals and your reasons for choosing it. If there is a runner-up, describe it and detail your reasons for making it your second choice.

Comment: If you support your case thoughtfully and logically, your preferred recommendation should emerge as the compelling, natural choice.

Source:  William F. O’Dell, Effective Business Decision-Making (NTC Business Books: Lincolnwood, Ill.)

These actionable tips serve as good reminders for her — and maybe for you, too.

Paper: Here’s advice that works: Commit to taking immediate action on every piece of paper, handling each item only once.

The suggestion is simple, but not simplistic. What’s more, if you have trouble filing, delegating or tossing, it suggests that your real problem has nothing to do with a torrent of paper: it’s a problem of decision-making. Here are tips to make your decision-making easier:

Distribution boxes: Use only two boxes: an “in” and an “out” box. Do not create a “hold” box — it usually degenerates into an “I can’t decide” box, which is little more than a procrastination tool. On the other hand:

• If you really can’t decide about something, it belongs in your “in” box. Go through the box once daily; make an action decision on every item.
• Pending decision files: If you have too many matters about which you are undecided and/or must delay a decision (e.g., you’re awaiting additional information), create “Decide By” files.

“Decide by” files are set up: by week of the month (first week, second, etc.); by days of the month (1 through 31); or by calendar months (January through December) — whatever is appropriate for your circumstances.

Go through the files when their time comes; commit to making a decision and make it, unless there is a compelling reason to defer or delay again.

Files and filing: The system you use – alphabetical, by date, by account, by subject, etc. – doesn’t matter so long as you can always quickly and easily retrieve the records or papers you need. Follow these action tips:

• Keep working files visible and at your fingertips. Create a file folder for each project, subject, customer, etc. you are currently working with or on.  Drop anything pertaining to the various matters into their folders so that you can readily retrieve what you need when it’s called for.
• Use filing cabinets for records and files that are no longer active or needed frequently.
• Establish discard criteria. Periodically go through inactive and/or historical files to discard useless, unnecessary papers.

Ron Harper, chairman of Harper Companies in Charlotte, North Carolina, got an estimated $40,000 in publicity for $5,000 by offering a $500 bonus to any employee who published an article in an industry trade publication. It wasn’t long before ten staffers saw their names in print – and on $500 checks.

The beauty of this approach is that unlike advertising and PR efforts, that can be expensive, difficult to measure and (unless you’re relying on a pro like Richard Berman) notoriously chancy, Harper wrote checks for known results.

Source: Leslie Brokaw, 301 Great Ideas From America’s Most Innovative Small Companies (Inc. Publishing).

A two-year study reveals that the most successful senior managers keep overriding concerns in mind at all time. Whenever effective managers confront a problem, they take into account all their related concerns then work toward solutions that can solve several problems at the same time.

Example: An effective, successful division manager working on a problem of poor product quality used the opportunity to tackle two additional matters:

• An inadequate production control system — a long-standing concern; and
• Expanding a promising young manager’s experience portfolio.

Here was the manager’s several-in-one solution: She assigned the young, up-and-coming manager to a newly created cross-functional team charged with solving the related problems of product quality and inadequate production control.

Comment: Successful senior managers’ ability to create “networks of problem to solve” is a developed, life-time mental habit. Develop it by recognizing that no problem exists in isolation. Then:

• Always look for relationships that exist between different problems; and
• Think through possible solutions likely to solve two or more problems at the same time.

Source: Daniel J. Eisenberg, “How Senior Managers Think”, Harvard Business Review, November, 1984. To order a copy, visit: http://tiny.cc/KbeFW

1. Prepare in advance appropriate responses to every possible unpleasant, hostile question you can think of.

2. Later, when actually answering audience questions, always pause before giving every answer even when you can give an immediate response. The audience gets used to your pausing pattern. If you get a zinger, a pause won’t telegraph the fact that you are grappling with a difficult question for which you aren’t prepared and this time really do need extra moments to think.

Source: Karen Berg & Andrew Gilman with Edward P. Stevenson, Get to the Point: How to Say What You Mean and Get What You Want (Bantam: New York)